Guest guest Posted August 27, 2000 Report Share Posted August 27, 2000 Sunder Hattangadi wrote: <skip> The way I understand these verses, is that I have free will as long as I identify myself with the body-mind-intellect, and can choose to approximate the omnipotent Divine Will; when the two merge the question will vanish. <end> I don't agree with this. The way I understand Advaita is that only Consciousness exists. Nothing else. All the other things that seem to exist are mere appearances within Consciousness. Then the question is: who is supposed to have free will? One of the two: either Consciousness Itself or the individual mind. The first can't be, as Consciousness doesn't act, doesn't take decisions, is not an individual entity. The second can't be either, as the mind doesn't exist. It is an illusion, a projection, an appearance. Only an independent, autonomous entity could be said to have freedom to choose, and clearly the mind is none of this. Besides, your argument seems to me very curious: "I have free will as long as I identify myself with the body-mind-intellect". I think that the identification with the body-mind is itself an illusion. There is no such thing in reality. Who identifies itself with the body-mind? Clearly not the body-mind. So it must be Brahman. But can Brahman fall in such a mistake? Not in the least. So identification, as everything else is mere appearance. The world seems to exist, but it doesn't. There seems to be identification but there isn't. I seem to have free will but I don't. Only Brahman exists, and all is as it must be. Miguel-Angel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2000 Report Share Posted August 27, 2000 advaitin , "Miguel Angel Carrasco" <macf12@t...> wrote: > Sunder Hattangadi wrote: > > <skip> > The way I understand these verses, is that I have free > will as long > as I identify myself with the body-mind-intellect, and > can choose to > approximate the omnipotent Divine Will; when the two > merge the > question will vanish. > <end> > > I don't agree with this. > The way I understand Advaita is that only Consciousness > exists. Nothing else. > All the other things that seem to exist are mere > appearances within Consciousness. > Then the question is: who is supposed to have free > will? > One of the two: either Consciousness Itself or the > individual mind. > The first can't be, as Consciousness doesn't act, > doesn't take decisions, is not an individual entity. > The second can't be either, as the mind doesn't exist. > It is an illusion, a projection, an appearance. Only an > independent, autonomous entity could be said to have > freedom to choose, and clearly the mind is none of > this. > > Besides, your argument seems to me very curious: "I > have free will as long > as I identify myself with the body-mind-intellect". > > I think that the identification with the body-mind is > itself an illusion. There is no such thing in reality. > Who identifies itself with the body-mind? Clearly not > the body-mind. So it must be Brahman. But can Brahman > fall in such a mistake? Not in the least. So > identification, as everything else is mere appearance. > The world seems to exist, but it doesn't. There seems > to be identification but there isn't. I seem to have > free will but I don't. > > Only Brahman exists, and all is as it must be. > > Miguel-Angel Q.E.D. as Euclid would say! Calling the perception an illusion is poles apart from experiencing and knowing it as an illusion and living in that Consciousness. Regards, sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.